Even if this is true, it doesn't negate social constructivism, it just extends it to other animals.

Crows are pretty remarkable. If they have higher cognitive ability it would be cool. I'm reasonably certain that they don't have anything even approaching syntactical language (and the advent of syntactical language really is the thing that changed everything for humans). But again, it says nothing about social constructivism.

There's a lot of information coming in about language ability in other animals. I'm very interested about it in terms of how it relates to memetic theory (the hows and whys of language evolution are pretty controversial, but I'm partial to the meme-gene co-evolution theory myself). But nothing even remotely suggests that other animals are where we are yet (even interesting things like bite-force have explained differences in brain capacity among primates).

If I ever wind up having a conversation with a crow about the nature of existence and the existential crisis that is finite life, then I'll smile pretty wide

What I mean is that to understand constructivism, it seems you have to start with the why in which words are subjectively assigned meanings in each persons mind, and how they interpret world. That is to say that each brain interprets sensory differently, from sight, smell, heat, pressure, color all differently.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-